What is conventionality/novelty in electronic music?

[whyterabbyt]

In electronically produced music tools are an unremovable part of what's possible in the first place.

In any music the specificity of individual tools is a removable part of what's possible in the first place.

No 303, no 303 sounds and sequences.

But alterernate sounds and sequences and thus music would still be possible.

Your problem is that you're conflating the arrangement with the music. You seem to have a solely mechanistic perception of music.
In case you didnt realise, the same piece of music can be performed on different instruments.

No piano, no Star Wars theme.

Sigh.

Or no [a particular piano], no particular sound and performance of Star Wars theme.

oooh, do I see enlightenment creeping in?
nah, prolly not.

It can also be less, because better and worse gear are not equivalent.

It doesnt really matter if they're equivalent, this is about music, not tools.

You cannot have digitally manipulated sounds without electronics. Simple as that.

I think you think that's a logical fait accompli. Its not, its tautology.

It could be possible to analyze and see if there's a pattern in some genre before Omnisphere and after Omnisphere, or some other tool.

Yeah, and according to you it should be possible to analyse music and determine novelty from a specific interpretation from some subjectively chosen data. So presuming that that's the case, it should also be possible to indefinitely synthesise novelty to your standards, by iterating sufficient deviation from your input data. Case closed, you can now go apply your rather singular perspective on novelty and music to appeasing your own needs for novelty in music.

[Bunny_boy]

In electronically produced music tools are an unremovable part of what's possible in the first place. No 303, no 303 sounds and sequences. No piano, no Star Wars theme. Or no [a particular piano], no particular sound and performance of Star Wars theme. It can also be less, because better and worse gear are not equivalent.

You cannot have digitally manipulated sounds without electronics. Simple as that. Once there's some instrument, after that it's possible to have those sounds and performances.

The musicians using the sounds and the sample engine I meant.

It could be possible to analyze and see if there's a pattern in some genre before Omnisphere and after Omnisphere, or some other tool.

So you're saying that if those instruments didn't exist, then the composer wouldn't make music? It's only because someone made those instruments that music can happen. If nobody made those instruments then no music can happen. These instruments were made out of the scope of the desire to make music
Therefore music doesn't exist, except vocal music.

Yes, and the main point in the thread is that "novelty" is partly about tools.

I dunno, I feels like the main themes of this thread are logical fallacies and an incomplete knowledge of the history of music

[whyterabbyt]

This cannot exist without a DMX:

[Jac459]

This cannot exist without a DMX:

Fun and enjoyable to watch...

But the original is so much better...

[zerocrossing]

Part of my pessimism may come from spending too much time on Gearspace, where there’s a contingent who think that the Jupiter 8 is the pinnacle of technology, and we should go back and pretend everything that happened afterwards never occurred.

Do they also think rock music peaked in 1971?

1987.

[soundmodel]

In electronically produced music tools are an unremovable part of what's possible in the first place.

In any music the specificity of individual tools is a removable part of what's possible in the first place.

No 303, no 303 sounds and sequences.

But alterernate sounds and sequences and thus music would still be possible.

Music yes, but not of the same type.

Yeah, and according to you it should be possible to analyse music and determine novelty from a specific interpretation from some subjectively chosen data.

All studies are like this.

[whyterabbyt]

Music yes, but not of the same type.

Yes, but it was your proposition that there'd be less music. Different music isnt less music.

[soundmodel]

Music yes, but not of the same type.

Yes, but it was your proposition that there'd be less music. Different music isnt less music.

In the context I proposed it's.

Because there's a continuum in technology that progresses from less advanced tools to more advanced. It's the same as why music performed on a Stradivari is "better" than using a less sophisticated violin. If it's not, then the Stradivari isn't either. But it is, and it enables more sophisticated music. It also means that it's more difficult to appear novel using more broadly available tools, because there are more producers for them.

So in this context we partially relate "new music" and "new technology".

Delia Derbyshire is a good example though. Very rudimentary tools, a lot of insight.

[BertKoor]

> It's the same as why music performed on a Stradivari is "better" than using a less sophisticated violin. If it's not, then the Stradivari isn't either. But it is.

Is it? Betterness is highly subjective, and depends on many many factors. Just using an instrument worth millions is no guarantee at all.

[soundmodel]

> It's the same as why music performed on a Stradivari is "better" than using a less sophisticated violin. If it's not, then the Stradivari isn't either. But it is.

Is it? Betterness is highly subjective, and depends on many many factors. Just using an instrument worth millions is no guarantee at all.

Lets just say that a lot of people would agree in an ABX test that the Stradivari, when played by the same player would sound better than a cheap violin.

This doesn't mean that expensive gear is always better. But in the case of acoustic instruments it often means that the harmonic content is better.

However, this is irrelevant for the topic, because in the topic it doesn't mean produce novelty. But it's possible for a violin player to sound novel via a Stradivari.

[justin3am]

> It's the same as why music performed on a Stradivari is "better" than using a less sophisticated violin. If it's not, then the Stradivari isn't either. But it is.

Is it? Betterness is highly subjective, and depends on many many factors. Just using an instrument worth millions is no guarantee at all.

Lets just say that a lot of people would agree in an ABX test that the Stradivari, when played by the same player would sound better than a cheap violin.

This doesn't mean that expensive gear is always better. But in the case of acoustic instruments it often means that the harmonic content is better.

However, this is irrelevant for the topic, because in the topic it doesn't mean produce novelty. But it's possible for a violin player to sound novel via a Stradivari.

In my experience, the differences in very expensive instruments vs more affordable instruments are almost never apparent to the listener. To the player, there may be a world of difference. Maybe not even in the sound but in the feelings/sensations of playing the instrument. That difference can result in the player interacting with the instrument differently.

Regarding the topic of a novel sound? It's all subjective. Any sound I've never heard is novel to me when I create it for the first time. Any sound a listener has never heard is novel to them, no matter how many times the creator has heard that sound. I can be novel as f**k with my old Casiotone keyboard 'cause I've never heard anyone else play one.

[Bunny_boy]

But it's possible for a violin player to sound novel via a Stradivari.

Do you have a link to the tests that state this?

They'll still sound like they're playing a violin - it won't sound like they're sea slug reciting Chaucer

[soundmodel]

But it's possible for a violin player to sound novel via a Stradivari.

Do you have a link to the tests that state this?

They'll still sound like they're playing a violin - it won't sound like they're sea slug reciting Chaucer

No, it is just statistics.

If there are n < (much less) m of that instrument type, then the probability of appearing new in n instruments is more probable.

As m grows then the more likely it is to find that everything seems to sound the same.

[Bunny_boy]

No, it is just statistics.

If there are n < (much less) m of that instrument type, then the probability of appearing new in n instruments is more probable.

I work in statistics.

[donkey tugger]

I can be novel as f**k with my old Casiotone keyboard 'cause I've never heard anyone else play one.

Mr Sting?

https://www.musicradar.com/news/the-pol ... rial-world